9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019 without referring the matter to Jurisdiction AO for enquiry and examination. 4. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019 without appreciating that he has not the power to pass such order and such power lies with Jurisdiction AO, ITO, Exemption ward 1(3), Delhi. 5. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019 disallowing application of income of Rs. 7,02,026/- without appreciating that this was beyond the scope of section 143(1) in the facts and circumstances of the case of appellant. 6. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019 disallowing application of income of Rs. 7,02,026/- without appreciating that details of Audit Report u/s 10B was provided in return, hence claim of appellant was correct claim. He wrongly upheld denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 7. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only an additional remedy. (Pages 1-3 of case law compilation) Filing of Audit Report u/s 10B was directory and not mandatory Submissions and case law regarding these grounds (Pages 66-71 of PB) Audit Report was given in Return Form (Pages 31-33 of PB) Application for additional evidence (Pages 41-47 of PB) Association of Corporation and Apex Societies of Handlooms v. ADIT (2013) 351 ITR 287 (Del) CIT v. Sakal Relief Fund, 2017 (4) TMI 772 (Bom) (Pages 21-24 of case law compilation) CIT v. Software Technologies Parks of India, 2019 (8) TMI 168(Del) (Pages 19-20 of case law compilation) CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd., 317 ITR 249 (Del.) CIT Vs. Integrated Databases India 178 Taxman 432 (Del.) Audit Report in Form 10CCB was submitted before CIT(A) Submissions and case law regarding these grounds (Pages 67-68 of PB) ACIT v. Hi-Line Pens Pvt. Ltd., [2013 (9) TMI 440-ITAT Delhi] deduction to the assessee u/s 80IB (Pages 4-12 of case law compilation) CIT v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 1049 Gujarat High Court] "29. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the material on record of the case. The issue rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10B. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee's appeal holding that assessee had remedy before jurisdictional Commissioner/ Pr. Commissioner/Director of Income-tax for condoning delay in filing Form B and claiming benefit of section 11. It was noted that assessee was well aware that there was a delay in filing Form 10B, however assessee seemed to have not made any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B before concerned Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner/Director of Income-tax as provided under section 119(2)(b). Whether there was no infirmity in order passed by Commissioner (Appeals)-hold, Yes (Paras 6.2 and 6.3) [In favour of revenue." 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CC v, Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327/69 GST 239 has laid down following principles. (1) Exemption notification/provisions should be interpreted strictly, the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of exemption clause or exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is said to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner and its performance in any other mode or fashion shall be of no consequence Therefore, in application of the above decisions of the Apex Court and also the mandated provisions of the statute, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the exemption claimed and made addition of the same to the total income of the appellant as per the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(B). 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, I observed that the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act by observing that assessee has not filed audit report in Form 10B along with return of income. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds raised by the assessee with the observation that power of condonation of delay in filing Form 10B rest with CIT (Exemptions) only and not with CIT(A) by relying on the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Association of India Panel Board Manufacturer (supra). 7. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the above said grounds befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 02.04.2019. Thus, on the date when the return was taken up for assessment, there was record to show that the assessee had intimated the department about the resolution passed by the Board of the assessee Trust and the statutory Form No. 10. Admittedly, the assessment was not completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, there would have been no error had the assessing officer taken up the copy of the Board Resolution and Form No.10. Thus, on the date when the return was filed, the assessee had separately filed Form No. 10 along with the Board Resolution along with a covering letter dated 01.04.2009. Thus, in our considered opinion, when the assessee was entitled to a statutory benefit, it would be incumbent upon the concerned authority to examine the admissibility of the benefit than to foreclose the assessee on technicalities." Further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT-IV vs. Savier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., Tax Appeal No.1362 of 2011, wherein held as under: "4. The question whether it is permissible to the assessee to produce the audit report at the appellate stage, has already been answered by this court in CIT v. Gujar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
